This Has to Stop

[Astonished]

I wish he wasn't dead. Not only were the things he said poignant and humorous, but his speaking voice was so pleasant to listen to. I wish I had more space on my crappy iPod so I didn't have to delete some of the chapters of GING to make it all fit when I want to listen to the audiobook.

[Minimalist]

Enjoy this.  There is a Part II

[AFTT47]

I don't usually do this but I'm entering a thread late without reading the whole thing.

This is a difficult, gray area. On one hand, there is the right of a parent to raise a child as they see fit. On the other hand, there is societal protection of the child against what is considered abuse.

I once heard of a Steve Martin comedy skit where he hypothetically raises the idea of raising a child and deliberately teaching him/her the wrong words for everything in the local language. On the child's first day of school, he/she needs to pee so he/she asks the teacher, "Mame, may I mumble dog paddy down to the banana patch?"

Obviously, a parent doing this would be dragged through the coals. But is there really any difference between this and feeding a blank, impressionable child information about an all-powerful, all-knowing, Master of the Universe as if it were fact?

There is nothing wrong with telling someone else about your faith - when they are mature enough to parse it objectively. But what is the difference between raising a child with a false language or indoctrinating a child with your religion or indoctrinating a child with the Peanuts (Charlie Brown) idea of The Great Pumpkin? None, IMO. Feeding information to a child as if it were fact when it is NOT fact is child abuse, IMO.

[Succubus]

I wish he wasn't dead. Not only were the things he said poignant and humorous, but his speaking voice was so pleasant to listen to. I wish I had more space on my crappy iPod so I didn't have to delete some of the chapters of GING to make it all fit when I want to listen to the audiobook.

Ann Widdecombe and some twat bishop's public execution at the hands of Fry and Hitchens is a joy to see.

[Amarok]

Umm I have never encountered Amish who forbade there people from going into the outside world .

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't usually do this but I'm entering a thread late without reading the whole thing.

This is a difficult, gray area. On one hand, there is the right of a parent to raise a child as they see fit. On the other hand, there is societal protection of the child against what is considered abuse.

I once heard of a Steve Martin comedy skit where he hypothetically raises the idea of raising a child and deliberately teaching him/her the wrong words for everything in the local language. On the child's first day of school, he/she needs to pee so he/she asks the teacher, "Mame, may I mumble dog paddy down to the banana patch?"

Obviously, a parent doing this would be dragged through the coals. But is there really any difference between this and feeding a blank, impressionable child information about an all-powerful, all-knowing, Master of the Universe as if it were fact?

There is nothing wrong with telling someone else about your faith - when they are mature enough to parse it objectively. But what is the difference between raising a child with a false language or indoctrinating a child with your religion or indoctrinating a child with the Peanuts (Charlie Brown) idea of The Great Pumpkin? None, IMO. Feeding information to a child as if it were fact when it is NOT fact is child abuse, IMO.

The difference is that no one actually believes in The Great Pumpkin. But if I 100% think that God is real and that Jesus was God made man who came down and taught us things and died for us, of course I'm going to teach my child about Him. Its insulting and narrow minded that you say i will be abusing my future child and that you think my mom and dad abused me, just because you believe something different.

I don't think Mohammed or Buddha or Joseph Smith were anything more than completely regular men, and I think their stories are completely false, but i would never call Muslims, Buddhists, or Mormons child abusers for conveying to their children the religious belief that they fully believe are true.

[Astonished]

I don't usually do this but I'm entering a thread late without reading the whole thing.

This is a difficult, gray area. On one hand, there is the right of a parent to raise a child as they see fit. On the other hand, there is societal protection of the child against what is considered abuse.

I once heard of a Steve Martin comedy skit where he hypothetically raises the idea of raising a child and deliberately teaching him/her the wrong words for everything in the local language. On the child's first day of school, he/she needs to pee so he/she asks the teacher, "Mame, may I mumble dog paddy down to the banana patch?"

Obviously, a parent doing this would be dragged through the coals. But is there really any difference between this and feeding a blank, impressionable child information about an all-powerful, all-knowing, Master of the Universe as if it were fact?

There is nothing wrong with telling someone else about your faith - when they are mature enough to parse it objectively. But what is the difference between raising a child with a false language or indoctrinating a child with your religion or indoctrinating a child with the Peanuts (Charlie Brown) idea of The Great Pumpkin? None, IMO. Feeding information to a child as if it were fact when it is NOT fact is child abuse, IMO.

The difference is that no one actually believes in The Great Pumpkin. But if I 100% think that God is real and that Jesus was God made man who came down and taught us things and died for us, of course I'm going to teach my child about Him. Its insulting  and narrow minded that you say i will be abusing my future child and that you think my mom and dad abused me, just because you believe something different.

I don't think Mohammed or Buddha or Joseph Smith were anything more than completely regular men, and I think their stories are completely false, but i would never call Muslims, Buddhists, or Mormons child abusers for conveying to their children the religious belief that they fully believe are true.

And the fact that you do not recognize your own dishonesty and hypocrisy in that is why we have reason to conclude that your parents did abuse you, if not intentionally, then as a result of the indoctrination they forced you through. You did not come out n the other side A-OK, sweetie. And you're preparing to walk down that same path with your own kids. It's up to you to take to heart the lesson that, if you don't objectively 100% KNOW that god is real, that you know every single characteristic he possesses in exact quantities, etc., then you're lying to your child if you teach it to them AS FACT. Since you've demonstrated that you have a poor grasp of critical thinking and definitions and even the ability to look at your own mythology objectively, you may not think you're going about religious education with a child in a cringe-worthy way when in fact you are. This is why we facepalm.

[Catholic_Lady]

Haha ok fuck face

[The Grand Nudger]

The difference is that no one actually believes in The Great Pumpkin. But if I 100% think that God is real and that Jesus was God made man who came down and taught us things and died for us, of course I'm going to teach my child about Him.

-and if someone -did- believe in the great pumpkin..then, suddenly, it wouldn't be disturbing anymore?

Its insulting  and narrow minded that you say i will be abusing my future child and that you think my mom and dad abused me, just because you believe something different.

-aaaand there's the hook.  You're arguing a perceived insult, not the proposition itself.  Not my mommy!  Not my daddy!  Yes, your mommy and daddy convinced you that the great pumpkin was real so effectively that you plan to do the same to children, yourself.  

I don't think Mohammed or Buddha or Joseph Smith were anything more than completely regular men, and I think their stories are completely false, but i would never call Muslims, Buddhists, or Mormons child abusers for conveying to their children the religious belief that they fully believe are true.

Because their lie exposes your own, and that of your parents.  However, you're comfortable with tossing The Great Pumpkin under the bus.  This is mystifying, since great pumpkin belief does not seem to coincide with militant pumpkinism....or faithful pumpkin bigotry.

To my knowledge there are no Pumpkin Earth Creationists. No Pumpkin dominionists. No Pumpkin Scientists using the power of pumpkin pryaer to heal their pumpkin illnesses..or that of their children. No pumpkin flock donating money to the Great Pumpkin Magesteria that then uses this money to shuffle around Pumpkin child predators. No Pumpkin Pro Life Activists, picketing girls on street corners with babykiller posters. No West PumpkinBoro Church.

Belief in the great pumpkin does not require the acceptance of human sacrifices and vicarious redemption...nor does it carry with it threat or implications of consequence for failure to have faith- or that the lack of faith is, in itself, a failure.

Great Pumpkinism is benign in -all- of the ways that your religion...and muslim's religion, and buddhist's religion, and mormom's religion....is not. But -it's- the fuckin weird one is it? The outlier. The thing that would make you wonder about the parents and the quality of the child's upbringing...........?

[Harry Nevis]

I accept scientific facts.

I don't accept claims.

Creationists, in particular YECs, are not rational or sensible.

 Sure we are, we know there has to be a beginning point, we have one, you have snail poop.

GC

---

No, you've been TOLD there has to be a beginning point, and you FEEL like there should be a beginning point.  You KNOW nothing of the sort.

---

ArouraHere you go, this is the post I meant.
[quote pid='1619719' dateline='1505368188']

Dinosaur Train is awesome! I actually watched it with my daughter when she was younger.  There was nothing in it I couldn't accept to be true. It just teaches kids what scientists have recently discovered, and some of their best guesses, which they even explain how those theories are formed and why, about one of kids favorite subjects, dinosaurs!

 I've watched a number of times to see what they say and they claim much as fact that in reality isn't. Don't try to excuse their behavior, that type of behavior is what Christians will reject every time.

GC

---

[/quote]

Pot, meet kettle.

---

I don't usually do this but I'm entering a thread late without reading the whole thing.

This is a difficult, gray area. On one hand, there is the right of a parent to raise a child as they see fit. On the other hand, there is societal protection of the child against what is considered abuse.

I once heard of a Steve Martin comedy skit where he hypothetically raises the idea of raising a child and deliberately teaching him/her the wrong words for everything in the local language. On the child's first day of school, he/she needs to pee so he/she asks the teacher, "Mame, may I mumble dog paddy down to the banana patch?"

Obviously, a parent doing this would be dragged through the coals. But is there really any difference between this and feeding a blank, impressionable child information about an all-powerful, all-knowing, Master of the Universe as if it were fact?

There is nothing wrong with telling someone else about your faith - when they are mature enough to parse it objectively. But what is the difference between raising a child with a false language or indoctrinating a child with your religion or indoctrinating a child with the Peanuts (Charlie Brown) idea of The Great Pumpkin? None, IMO. Feeding information to a child as if it were fact when it is NOT fact is child abuse, IMO.

The difference is that no one actually believes in The Great Pumpkin. But if I 100% think that God is real and that Jesus was God made man who came down and taught us things and died for us, of course I'm going to teach my child about Him. Its insulting  and narrow minded that you say i will be abusing my future child and that you think my mom and dad abused me, just because you believe something different.

I don't think Mohammed or Buddha or Joseph Smith were anything more than completely regular men, and I think their stories are completely false, but i would never call Muslims, Buddhists, or Mormons child abusers for conveying to their children the religious belief that they fully believe are true.

So, whether or not what you're teaching your kids is factual or not (independent of what you believe) is not as important as telling them what you believe is fact.